Corn for ethanol a bad trade and taxpayers subsidy

[texasredneck]

Using corn for ethanol is driving prices for beef and poultry Thur the roof.

In Plano,Texas at Kroger 6 months ago ground round was $3.27, 3 months ago $3.77 and last week it went to $4.25.

[verrip1]

Welcome to the costs of liberalism. They were told long ago this would happen. Now they consider it 'unintended consequences'.

Unintended my ass.

[verrip1]

Governmentally mandated inflation will eliminate any benefit from increased interest rates. Bernanke and the Fed are powerless to deal with govenmentally mandated inflation. That's the difference between monetary control (Fed) and fiscal control (Administration and Congress).

[Virgil Showlion]

Subsidies for turning corn into ethanol is one of the biggest US gov't boondoggles in recent memory.

From an efficiency standpoint, from a food standpoint, from a "common sense" standpoint, it's such a ridiculously failed policy that it's hard to believe there isn't ill intent involved.

I know, I know. No "C" word allowed on MT.

[itstippy]

Don't burn that ethanol for fuel - bottle it as good ol' corn liquor and sell it cheap. And since we subsidize tobacco farmers, that should be dirt cheap too. Cheap booze & smokes! That's something we could all support, right?

Now for the "C" word. The "Big C".

We'd solve the Medicare/Social Security crisis! Everybody'd croak of liver & lung cancer at age 62 like they're supposed to. No more supporting retired people for 25-30 years, with hip replacements and bypass surgeries and bad driving habits & such. Set the retirement age at 64, bump average life expectancy down to 62, and the problem solves itself.

[frankq]

One of the first rules of survival: You don't burn your food.

[nicomachus]

The USA's food and agriculture policy is, I think, one of the scariest parts of our current situation. Everything about is backwards. The corn industry has found many pointless ways to waste its own product, very few of which actually result in putting nutritious food into people's mouths.

Subsidizing farmers for it has also resulted in the non-use of many acres that should (and otherwise would) be used to produce soy, rice, and food for livestock.

And if I can express a mere hunch: We won't really be out of this recession until we re-organize our agricultural policy. FDR recognized this in the 30s and hired renowned agricultural economist Rexford Tugwell to work with Sec of Agriculture Henry Wallace (himself also a recognized economist) to find ways to protect America's most valuable asset: Its farm land and food supply.

Today we get the likes of Vilsack, with almost no economic understanding and already bought off by the corn industry and their lobbyists.

[itstippy]

"One of the first rules of survival: You don't burn your food."

That is hilarious. More like that, FrankQ! Reminds me of your old "survival" thread where you were ditching the Arrow shirts & wingtips and wanted advice on camo fatigues & hiking boots. I see you've become an expert on survival tips.

[neohguy]

Feb 18, 2011 20:57:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Subsidies for turning corn into ethanol is one of the biggest US gov't boondoggles in recent memory.

From an efficiency standpoint, from a food standpoint, from a "common sense" standpoint, it's such a ridiculously failed policy that it's hard to believe there isn't ill intent involved.

I know, I know. No "C" word allowed on MT.

I agree. The media coverage about this, and anything else of importance, in the US is so poor that most Americans (US) don't know about it. I wasn't aware about it until someone started a thread about it on the old board in 2008. Gas prices were sky high and the media was telling us about the "virtues" of corn ethanol fuel. Members of the board back then posted articles from universities debunking the myth. There was not one proponent back then that was able to post a study that showed corn ethanol production was a viable means of reducing dependence on foreign oil.
Another example of powerful lobbies and companies along with political cronies forming energy policy and most other policy imo.

[frankq]

Feb 19, 2011 16:28:32 GMT -5 @itstippy said:

"One of the first rules of survival: You don't burn your food."

That is hilarious. More like that, FrankQ! Reminds me of your old "survival" thread where you were ditching the Arrow shirts & wingtips and wanted advice on camo fatigues & hiking boots. I see you've become an expert on survival tips.

Hey. You gotta cover all your bases right?

[neohguy]

Feb 20, 2011 16:05:13 GMT -5 frankq said:

Feb 19, 2011 16:28:32 GMT -5 @itstippy said:

"One of the first rules of survival: You don't burn your food."

That is hilarious. More like that, FrankQ! Reminds me of your old "survival" thread where you were ditching the Arrow shirts & wingtips and wanted advice on camo fatigues & hiking boots. I see you've become an expert on survival tips.

Hey. You gotta cover all your bases right?

I still have 3,460 Bic lighters for a hedge. They'll be the hot commodity, not flint and steel.

[lifewasgood]

Nuke power is the only economical solution to the energy needs that can actually have an impact on oil consumption. All others are wasting tax dollars and making the rich filthy rich. The environmental impact of trying to produce enough energy from corn would by huge. Deforestation, waste of productive farmland, waste of water, not to mention the pollution that fertilizers will have.

[nicomachus]

Feb 20, 2011 16:58:54 GMT -5 @lifewasgood said:

Nuke power is the only economical solution to the energy needs that can actually have an impact on oil consumption. All others are wasting tax dollars and making the rich filthy rich. The environmental impact of trying to produce enough energy from corn would by huge. Deforestation, waste of productive farmland, waste of water, not to mention the pollution that fertilizers will have.

So, according to a (pro-nuclear power) study from MIT, as well as others, we would have to build at least 1500 nuclear power plants by 2050 to have even a modest affect on the amount of fossil fuels that we use.

The IAEA has reported that if we wanted to have a system wherein over half of our electricity needs is provided by nuclear power in Europe and N. America, we would have to construct 115 nuclear power generators a year. Currently, a single nuclear power plant (which takes 5-10 years to build) costs around 6 billion dollars.

And don't expect private investors to pay for it: They have been refusing for decades. If you think the bailouts were expensive, wait till you see how expensive building all these nuclear power reactors will be.

This isn't to mention the problem of guaranteeing safety. One accident will cause millions in damage. Which is why no insurance company will insure nuclear power plants. You the tax payer can pay for that, too, courtesy of the Price-Anderson Act which requires the US Govt to insure nuclear plants.

Nor is there enough room for all these nuclear power plants. Even if we could magically build 1000 nuclear reactors, we would then need a new Yucca Mountain every 4-5 years for the waste.

Speaking of waste: Did you know that the UK spends some 70 billion a year to dispose of their waste?

My point is this: I find the claims that nuclear power is in any way "economical" to be questionable.

[bimetalaupt]

Feb 20, 2011 20:51:00 GMT -5 @nicomachus said:

Feb 20, 2011 16:58:54 GMT -5 @lifewasgood said:

Nuke power is the only economical solution to the energy needs that can actually have an impact on oil consumption. All others are wasting tax dollars and making the rich filthy rich. The environmental impact of trying to produce enough energy from corn would by huge. Deforestation, waste of productive farmland, waste of water, not to mention the pollution that fertilizers will have.

So, according to a (pro-nuclear power) study from MIT, as well as others, we would have to build at least 1500 nuclear power plants by 2050 to have even a modest affect on the amount of fossil fuels that we use.

The IAEA has reported that if we wanted to have a system wherein over half of our electricity needs is provided by nuclear power in Europe and N. America, we would have to construct 115 nuclear power generators a year. Currently, a single nuclear power plant (which takes 5-10 years to build) costs around 6 billion dollars.

And don't expect private investors to pay for it: They have been refusing for decades. If you think the bailouts were expensive, wait till you see how expensive building all these nuclear power reactors will be.

This isn't to mention the problem of guaranteeing safety. One accident will cause millions in damage. Which is why no insurance company will insure nuclear power plants. You the tax payer can pay for that, too, courtesy of the Price-Anderson Act which requires the US Govt to insure nuclear plants.

Nor is there enough room for all these nuclear power plants. Even if we could magically build 1000 nuclear reactors, we would then need a new Yucca Mountain every 4-5 years for the waste.

Speaking of waste: Did you know that the UK spends some 70 billion a year to dispose of their waste?

My point is this: I find the claims that nuclear power is in any way "economical" to be questionable.

New power will be more stable and cores will live from 50 to 100 years.. Example is the next Generation nuclear power flat tops(CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford).. Core is going to last from 50 to 60 years per Navy. By the way total cost is $5.1 Billion and has two nuclear plants..at $6 billion the Navy is getting a bargain.

Attachments:

[Virgil Showlion]

we would then need a new Yucca Mountain every 4-5 years for the waste

I find that quite of few of the articles that do waste analysis on the nuclear option aren't aware of more recent technologies for recycling and reburning half-spent fuel rods.

I'll see if I can find some numbers on mg/Mwh. They're a small fraction of what a 1980's or 1990's reactor would produce.

As for the fantastic rate that nuclear power would have to be set up, I don't see 1500 reactors over 40 years in a country of 300 million to be staggering. That's 30K per individual spread over 40 years ($750/yr.), assuming zero technological improvements. I guess it all depends on what the MIT report means by "modest effect" on fossil fuel usage.

[lifewasgood]

The points or none points that nicomachus brings forward is exactly why we as a nation stopped building Nuke Plants. I call it the Three Mile Island syndrome.

Thanks bimetalaupt for pointing to the Navy as the modern answer to generating power.

Thanks Virgil for sharing the project real cost of energy independence.

[lifewasgood]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41687653/ns/us_news-environment/?gt1=39002

As we approach yet another Hurricane season, we must pray that a large storm does not cross over this area of the gulf.

[bimetalaupt]

Also think of the navy Training program for the Next Generation ( Gen III 1/2) systems from Bechtel. They have two of these units being build for Duke Energy right now.

Single system.. Single system Testing and single system production... Cut cost some 50% total... Life time expediency for the core 50-60 years. Reduced cost for life of the system..$10 billion each pair..

Just a thought,
Bruce

[bimetalaupt]

Feb 21, 2011 11:13:45 GMT -5 bimetalaupt said:

Also think of the navy Training program for the Next Generation ( Gen III 1/2) systems from Bechtel. They have two of these units being build for Duke Energy right now.

Single system.. Single system Testing and single system production... Cut cost some 50% total... Life time expediency for the core 50-60 years. Reduced cost for life of the system..$10 billion each pair..

Just a thought,
Bruce

Attachments:

[lifewasgood]

I actually help the neighbor boy get into the Navy Nuke program last year. He is doing well in school and I convinced him it would reward him well into the future with that kind of knowledge and training. He is being assigned to subs for his next training program.

Just thought I would share this tidbit.

[bimetalaupt]

Feb 21, 2011 11:17:30 GMT -5 @lifewasgood said:

I actually help the neighbor boy get into the Navy Nuke program last year. He is doing well in school and I convinced him it would reward him well into the future with that kind of knowledge and training. He is being assigned to subs for his next training program.

Just thought I would share this tidbit.

I had a friend at UT-Austin that did the same thing.. then a MS in Nuclear Enginering .. during the early 1970's.. Great Training!!! and great job offers..

[Deleted]

I know I am late to the party, but I have no issue with the experiment of using corn to make fuel. The US is a big fat baby and we suck the black milk from our Middle East Mommy's teat. We need to wean ourselves from that and if we make a few mistakes along the weaning path, I am ok with that.

[neohguy]

Feb 21, 2011 13:07:47 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

I know I am late to the party, but I have no issue with the experiment of using corn to make fuel. The US is a big fat baby and we suck the black milk from our Middle East Mommy. We need to wean ourselves from that and if we make a few mistakes along the weaning path, I am ok with that.

It had nothing to do with that. It was another smoke and mirror gimmick, this time by by the farm lobby. The amount of money that taxpayers are subsidizing for this sub par fuel amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare, an entitlement that dwarfs individual welfare when you count the ridiculous defense budget. Remember, there were no wmd's in Iraq despite the dog and pony show that was used to sell it.

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2011 13:50:21 GMT -5 @neohguy said:

Feb 21, 2011 13:07:47 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

I know I am late to the party, but I have no issue with the experiment of using corn to make fuel. The US is a big fat baby and we suck the black milk from our Middle East Mommy. We need to wean ourselves from that and if we make a few mistakes along the weaning path, I am ok with that.

It had nothing to do with that. It was another smoke and mirror gimmick, this time by by the farm lobby. The amount of money that taxpayers are subsidizing for this sub par fuel amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare, an entitlement that dwarfs individual welfare when you count the ridiculous defense budget. Remember, there were no wmd's in Iraq despite the dog and pony show that was used to sell it.

I will stick with my original comments.

[bimetalaupt]

taxpayers sub... If you do not think Nuclear power has a future just look at the billions of dollars the navy has invested in the next generation (III 1/2) for power.. Duke will get two reactors like those on the Ford,

[verrip1]

Archie said:

I will stick with my original comments.

You mean the gratuitous, irrelevant comment about WMDs didn't win you over? Geez, that was his go-to argument when all else fails.

[comokate]

Feb 21, 2011 20:36:12 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Archie said:

I will stick with my original comments.

You mean the gratuitous, irrelevant comment about WMDs didn't win you over? Geez, that was his go-to argument when all else fails.

Actually it did, unlike the go-to tactic of empty, predictably ill-spirited sarcasm.

[tyfighter3]

We need all of the Fossil Fuels and Alternative energy sources we can lay our hands on. You should go to ADM'S website and look at all of the By-products of corn after they get all of the Ethanol out of it. You would find that there is not very much waste left. We really are not burning our food.

[bimetalaupt]

Ty,
One of the interesting events of the 21ST century will be Electric cars being charge with the night time wind power.. We see a majority of the wind at night. Duke energy is planning to add more wires to the home for electric cars being charged at night.. 90% of all use can be charged at night only as the range for the batteries for most units will be more then the average charge.

[texasredneck]

What corn by product would you all like for supper.